Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T10:22:51.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mite association with the leaf domatia of coffee (Coffea arabica) in north Queensland, Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Dennis J. O'Dowd
Dennis J. O'Dowd*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria. Australia
*
Dennis O'Dowd, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The primary coffee of commerce, Coffea arabica, has well-developed pit domatia in the primary vein axils on the undersurfaces of the leaves. In plantations near Mareeba and Daintree in far north Queensland, Australia, these morphogenetic structures are commonly occupied by mites. Mites used domatia on over 80% of all leaves examined, and 41% of all domatia had been occupied by mites (15–28% on young leaves and 54–59% on older leaves at Mareeba, and 58% overall at Daintree). At Mareeba, domatia use by mites did not differ among plants or shoots within plants but did vary significantly with leaf position within shoots, a reflection of leaf age. Domatia were important sites for mite reproduction and development; 93% of the eggs and all moulting mites on leaves were in domatia. Seven mite taxa were identified on leaves at Mareeba and nine were present at Daintree. With the exception of Fungitarsonemus sp. and Brevipalpus obovatus Donnadieu at Mareeba, all were concentrated in leaf domatia. Almost all mites in domatia were from groups in which arboreal representatives are primarily predatory (e.g., Stigmaeidae, Phytoseiidae, and Bdellidae), fungivorous (e.g., Winterschmidtiidae, Oribatida and Acaridae), or both (Tydeidae and Tarsonemidae). The data suggest that domatia influence the distribution and abundance of predatory and fungivorous mites that have the potential to affect fungal pathogens and some arthropod pests on coffee leaves.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 84 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 361 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamoli de Barros, M.A. (1960) Origem e formaçao das domácias em Coffea L. Anais da Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ (Sao Paulo) 17, 131–138.Google Scholar
Adanioli de Barros, M.A. (1963) Estudo comparativo das domácias de folhas nonmais e domácias de folhas cujas plantas foram cultivadas com deficiencias e excessos de micronutrientes (Fe, Mn, Mo, e Cu), em Coffea arabica L. variedade caturra K.M.C. Anais da Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ (Sao Paulo) 20, 219–240.Google Scholar
Bernays, E.A. (1991) Evolution of insect morphology in relation to plants. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society of London B 333, 257–264.Google Scholar
Brouwer, Y.M. & Clifford, H.T. (1990) An annotated list of domatia-bearing species. Notes from the Jodrell Laboratory, 12, 1–33.Google Scholar
Chant, D.A. (1959) Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Canadian Entomologist (Supplement) 12, 1–45.Google Scholar
Dedecca, D.M. (1957) Anatomia e desenvolvimiento ontogenetico de Coffea arabica L. var. typica Cramer. Bragantia 16, 315–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, M. & Sabelis, M.W. (1988) How plants obtain predatory bodyguards. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 38, 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, R.S. & Moilliet, T.K. (1967) Relative densities of predacious and phytophagous mites on three varieties of apple trees. Canadian Entomologist 99, 738–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duso, C. (1992) Role of Amblyseius aberrans (Oud.), Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten and Amblyseius andersoni (Chant) (Acari, Phytoseiidae) in vineyards. III. Influence of variety characteristics on the success of A. aberrans and T. pyri releases.Journal of Applied Entomology 114, 455–462.Google Scholar
Eickwort, G.C. (1983) Potential use of mites as biological control agents of leaf feeding insects. pp. 41–52in Hoy, M.A., Cunningham, G.L & Knutson, L. (Eds) Biological control of pests by mites. Proceedings of a conference. Agricultural Experimental Station. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Special Publication No. 33904.Google Scholar
Flaherty, D.L. & Huffaker, C.B. (1970) Biological control of Pacific mites and Willamette mites. I Role of Metaseiulus occidentalis. Hilgardia 40, 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grostal, P. & O'Dowd, D.J. (1994) Plants, mites, and mutualism: leaf domatia and the abundance and reproduction of mites on Viburnum tinus (Caprifoliaceae). Oecologia 97, 308–315Google Scholar
Helle, W. & Sabelis, M. (1985) Spider mites, their biology, natural enemies and control. New York, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M. (1966) On domatia–the viewpoints and some facts 1. Academie van Wetenschappen Amsterdam 69, 275–316.Google Scholar
Jeppson, L.R., Keifer, H.H. & Baker, E.W. (1975) Mites injurious to economic plants. Berkeley, California, USA, University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knop, N.F. & Hoy, M.A. (1983) Biology of a tydeid mite, Homeopronematus anconai (n. comb.) (Acari: Tydeidae), important in San Joaquin Valley vineyards Hilgardia 51, 1–30.Google Scholar
Krantz, G.W. (1978) A manual of acarology 2nd edn.Corvallis, Oregon, USA, Oregon State University, Bookstores.Google Scholar
Laing, J.E. & Knop, N.F. (1983) Potential use of predacious mites other than Phytoseiidae for biological control of orchard pests. pp. 28–33in Hoy, M.A., Cunningham, G.L. & Knutson, L (Eds) Biological control of pests by mites. Proceedings of a conference.Agricultural Experimental Station. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Special Publication No 33904.Google Scholar
Le Pelley, R.H. (1968) Pests of Coffee. London, England, Longmans.Google Scholar
Linquist, E.E. (1986) The world genera of Tarsonemidae (Acari: Heterostigmata). a morphological, phylogenetic and systematic revision, with a reclassification of family-group taxa in the Heterostigmata. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada No. 136. 517 pp.Google Scholar
Lundströem, A.N. (1887) Von Domatien. Pflanzenbiologische Studien. II. Die Anpassungen der Pflanzen an Thiere Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientarium Upsaliensis, Series 3 13, 87 ppGoogle Scholar
McMurtry, J.A. (1983) Phytoseiid predators in orchard systems: a classical biological control success story. pp. 21–26in Hoy, M.A., Cunningham, G.L. & Knutson, L. (Eds) Biological control of pests by mites Proceedings of a conference.Agricultural Experimental Station. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. Special Publication No. 33904.Google Scholar
Mälme, G.O.A. (1900) Brasilianska akarodomatie forande Rubiaceer. Bihang Till K. Svenska Vetensskaademiens Handlingar 25 Afd. 11, 3–21.Google Scholar
Nakamura, T., Taniguchi, T. & Maeda, E. (1992) Leaf anatomy of Coffea arabica L. with reference to domatia. Japanese Journal of Crop Science 61, 642–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, K.O. (1941) Contribution à l'étude des domaties du genre Coffea Hanoi, Viet Nam, Gouvernement Général de L'Indochine. Institut des Recherches Agronomiques et Forestières.Google Scholar
O'Dowd, D.J. & Pemberton, R.W. (in press) Leaf domatia in Korean plants: floristics, frequency, and biogeography. Vegetatio.Google Scholar
O'Dowd, D.J. & Willson, M.F. (1989) Leaf domatia and mites on Australasian plants: ecological and evolutionary implications. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 37, 191–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dowd, D.J. & Willson, M.F. (1991) Associations between mites and leaf domatia. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemberton, R.W. & Turner, C.E. (1989) Occurrence of predatory and fungivorous mites in leaf domatia American Journal of Botany 76, 105–112.Google Scholar
Schnell, R., Cusset, G., Tchinaye, V. & Tô, N.A. (1968) Contribution à l'étude des ‘acarodomaties’ la question des aisselles de nervures Revue générale de Botanique 75, 5–64Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1981) Biometry. 2nd edn.San Francisco, California, USA, W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Tô, N.A. (1966) Sur la structure anatomique et l'ontogénèse des acaro-domaties et leur interprétations morphologiques qui paraissent s'en dégager. Adansonia 6, 147–151.Google Scholar
Turner, C.E. & Pemberton, R.W. (1989) Leaf domatia and mites. a plant protection-mutualism hypothesis. pp. 341–359in Bock, J.B. & Linhart, Y.B. (Eds) The evolutionary ecology of plants. Boulder, Colorado, USA, Westview Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, M.M.H. & Mahon, J.A. (1972) The taxonomy and biology of Australian Bdellidae (Acari). I. Subfamilies Bdellinae, Spinbdellinae and Cytinae. Acarologia 15, 544–580.Google Scholar
Walter, D.E. (1992) Leaf surface structure and the distribution of Phytoseius mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in south-eastern Australian forests. Australian Journal of Zoology 40, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, D.E. & O'Dowd, D.J. (1992a) Leaves with domatia have more mites. Ecology 73, 1514–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, D.E. & O'Dowd, D.J. (1992b) Plant morphology and predators: the effect of leaf domatia on the abundance of phytoseiid mites (Acari. Phytoseiidae). Environmental Entomology 21, 774–783.Google Scholar
Walter, D.E. & O'Dowd, D.J. (in press) Life on the forest phylloplane hairs, little houses, and myriad mites. In Lowman, M.E & Nadkarni, N. (Eds) The forest canopy: aspects of research on this biological frontier. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Willmer, P.G. (1986) Microclimatic effects on insects at the plant surface. pp. 65–80in Juniper, B. & Southwood, R. (Eds) Insects and the plant surface London, Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Willson, M.F. (1991) Foliar shelters for mites in the eastern deciduous forest. American Midland Naturalist 126, 111–117.Google Scholar